If Jesus Is Human

[guest1]

I was hoping to actually engage the Calvinists here and get their direct answers in order to discuss this.

Could Jesus have sinned?
If He was not capable of sinning, how could He truly be able to 'sympathize with our weaknesses' (Hebrews 4:15)?
If He could not sin, what was the point of the temptation?"

Answer: There are two sides to this interesting question. It is important to remember that this is not a question of whether Jesus sinned. Both sides agree, as the Bible clearly says, that Jesus did not sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22). The question is whether Jesus could have sinned. Those who hold to “impeccability” believe that Jesus could not have sinned. Those who hold to “peccability” believe that Jesus could have sinned, but did not. Which view is correct? The clear teaching of Scripture is that Jesus was impeccable—Jesus could not have sinned. If He could have sinned, He would still be able to sin today because He retains the same essence He did while living on earth. He is the God-Man and will forever remain so, having full deity and full humanity so united in one person as to be indivisible. To believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (Colossians 1:19). Colossians 2:9 adds, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”

Although Jesus is fully human, He was not born with the same sinful nature that we are born with. He certainly was tempted in the same way we are, in that temptations were put before Him by Satan, yet He remained sinless because God is incapable of sinning. It is against His very nature (Matthew 4:1; Hebrews 2:18, 4:15; James 1:13). Sin is by definition a trespass of the Law. God created the Law, and the Law is by nature what God would or would not do; therefore, sin is anything that God would not do by His very nature.

To be tempted is not, in and of itself, sinful. A person could tempt you with something you have no desire to do, such as committing murder or participating in sexual perversions. You probably have no desire whatsoever to take part in these actions, but you were still tempted because someone placed the possibility before you. There are at least two definitions for the word “tempted”:

1) To have a sinful proposition suggested to you by someone or something outside yourself or by your own sin nature.

2) To consider actually participating in a sinful act and the possible pleasures and consequences of such an act to the degree that the act is already taking place in your mind.

The first definition does not describe a sinful act/thought; the second does. When you dwell upon a sinful act and consider how you might be able to bring it to pass, you have crossed the line of sin. Jesus was tempted in the fashion of definition one except that He was never tempted by a sin nature because it did not exist within Him. Satan proposed certain sinful acts to Jesus, but He had no inner desire to participate in the sin. Therefore, He was tempted like we are but remained sinless.

Those who hold to peccability believe that, if Jesus could not have sinned, He could not have truly experienced temptation, and therefore could not truly empathize with our struggles and temptations against sin. We have to remember that one does not have to experience something in order to understand it. God knows everything about everything. While God has never had the desire to sin, and has most definitely never sinned, God knows and understands what sin is. God knows and understands what it is like to be tempted. Jesus can empathize with our temptations because He knows, not because He has “experienced” all the same things we have.

Jesus knows what it is like to be tempted, but He does not know what it is like to sin. This does not prevent Him from assisting us. We are tempted with sins that are common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13). These sins generally can be boiled down to three different types: “the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16 NKJV). Examine the temptation and sin of Eve, as well as the temptation of Jesus, and you will find that the temptations for each came from these three categories. Jesus was tempted in every way and in every area that we are, but remained perfectly holy. Although our corrupt natures will have the inner desire to participate in some sins, we have the ability, through Christ, to overcome sin because we are no longer slaves to sin but rather slaves of God (Romans 6, especially verses 2 and 16-22).got?

hope this helps !!!

 

[zerinus]

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Heb. 4:15)

I affirm that Jesus is fully God (Col. 2:9). I believe Calvinists do as well (if I'm wrong, please correct me.)

If we also accept that Jesus is fully human then there are some issues that Calvinism must address.

Good questions. I am no Calvinist, so I will give a non-Calvinist answer your questions:

1. If Jesus is fully human, did He have a "sin nature"?

“Sin nature” doesn’t mean anything, and is not a biblical expression. The only legitimate question that could be asked would be, “Was he capable of sinning?” The answer to which would be, “Yes”.

2. If Jesus is fully human, and did not have a sin nature, how was He in all points tempted like as we are tempted?

Where does it say in the Bible that “sin nature” is required for someone to be “tempted”? “Sin nature” is not a biblical expression, and doesn’t mean anything.

3. If Jesus is fully human, and was in all points tempted like as we are tempted, yet without sin, can we do the same?

Yes and no! It is possible for someone to be fully sanctified in the flesh so that he loses all desire to sin, and no longer sins:

1 John 3:

6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

1 John 5:

18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

1 Peter 4:

1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

4. Did Jesus have supernatural help in some way that we don't have to avoid sinning?

Yes. He was divine in his spirit, which enabled him to resist the temptations of the devil to the utmost, and not sin.

5. Could He actually, really have sinned at all?

Yes, if he had wanted to, or chosen to.

6. If Jesus had supernatural assistance in some way that we don't have to avoid sinning or if He couldn't actually have really sinned, how is He a meaningful, functional representative sacrifice for us?

Illegitimate question. You need first to provide a legitimate reason why he couldn’t have been otherwise.

7. Does Jesus have free will?

Yes.

8. If Jesus has free will and we do not, how was He tempted like as we are tempted?

We also have freewill.

and finally...
9. If Jesus has free will and was in all points tempted like as we are tempted, does this not demand the conclusion that we, too, have free will?

We have freewill as he does.

I'm sure these questions can be phrased better and most likely have been addressed before. I did not see this topic in the first couple of pages in the A & C forum, so forgive me for the repetition. I do hope folks who read this can see what I'm getting at here.

In Truth and Love.

No problem.

 

[zerinus]

Why would he have to desire to sin in the first place? Wouldn't we be born with no desire to sin?

The desire to sin is borne of the temptation to sin. When we gain power to resist temptation completely, we also lose the desire to sin.

And why does the flesh need to be "fully sanctified" if there's nothing "sinful" about it? Wouldn't fleshly desires be naturally holy?

Those who sin become slaves to sin. But Jesus is able to deliver us from that slavery, and make us free:

John 8:

34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

Jesus is Impeccable just the same as the Father and Holy Spirit are Impeccable.

Have you studied the Hypostatic Union?

It answers all your questions.

hope this helps !!!

The poster is a firm believer in the Church of Christ. One of the most divisive denominations that I know of.

This is from Got Questions in an article on Christian (?) haters.

The Haters: The Church of Christ​

---

Often when I present GotQuestions.org to churches or individuals, I am asked, "Do you receive a lot of hate mail?" To that I can thankfully answer "no," as we receive far more expressions of gratitude than complaints. And, many of the complaints are presented respectfully and constructively. The follow-up question is often, "Who do you receive the most hate from?" When I answer that question, people are almost always surprised. My answer: the Church of Christ.

In the 16+ years I have been serving though GotQuestions.org, Church of Christ advocates have been, by far, the most consistent attackers. More sadly, though, Church of Christ advocates have also been the most rude, condescending, hateful, arrogant, and belligerent attackers. I lost count of how many times I have been proclaimed eternally condemned for one issue or another by self-proclaimed Church of Christ leaders/members. What are the issues they raise?

(1) The Church of Christ is the one true church of God, and anyone who is not a member of the Church of Christ is eternally condemned. I have literally had people tell me that the Church of Christ is the one and only Church of Christ because it has the name, "Church of Christ." Who knew? All you had to do to become the one true church was to have "Church of Christ" in your church's name.

(2) The New Testament does not record followers of Christ using musical instruments, therefore, if a church uses musical instruments, it is in fact worshipping Satan. Now, that might be a little bit of an exaggeration, but not by much. I have literally had Church of Christ advocates say that if I attend a church where musical instruments are used, I am bound for hell. Nevermind the fact that the New Testament nowhere prohibits or even discourages the use of musical instruments.

(3) Baptism is necessary for salvation. If a person is not baptized, he/she is not saved. Some go a step further and require baptism in a Church of Christ church for salvation. Essentially, the Church of Christ believes that in addition to faith, baptism is required for a person to be saved. God does not grant salvation until baptism occurs. Baptism is not a work that earns salvation, but it is something God requires before He grants salvation. Most Church of Christ advocates will say the same thing about repentance and public confession, but baptism is definitely what is emphasized the most.

It is interesting to probe Church of Christ baptism-salvation advocates a little further. If I state that I have received Christ as my Savior, by grace through faith, and have been baptized in obedience to Christ, and then ask if I am saved, the answer is usually, "no, because you do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation." So, their belief regarding what is required for salvation is actually: faith, repentance, public confession, baptism, and belief that baptism is necessary for salvation. While there are a few Bible verses that seem to indicate baptism is necessary for salvation, there are none that require certain beliefs about baptism for salvation. Church of Christ advocates do not just believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. They believe that their understanding of baptism is required for salvation.

The other day we received a question that asked, "Why did you forget about baptism in your Gospel presentation articles?" After I finished laughing (and crying) at the fact that someone could think we "forgot" a crucial aspect of the Gospel, I responded by "speaking the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15) and explained the biblical relationship between salvation and baptism: baptism is a step of obedience, after salvation, to declare publicly that we have been saved by the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Not all Church of Christ advocates have been hateful towards us. Some have expressed their disagreements with respect. I have no doubt that there are many in the Church of Christ who are truly saved and truly love the Lord Jesus Christ. But, at the same time, others who claim to represent the Church of Christ have been our most vehement and persistent haters.

Addendum
We just had a Church of Christ advocate send us a large package of materials that argue for baptismal regeneration. Included in the package was a New Testament with the statement, "I am including a New Testament because you obviously don't read it." Sigh.

S. Michael Houdmann

 

[guest1]

The poster is a firm believer in the Church of Christ. One of the most divisive denominations that I know of.

This is from Got Questions in an article on Christian (?) haters.

The Haters: The Church of Christ​

---

Often when I present GotQuestions.org to churches or individuals, I am asked, "Do you receive a lot of hate mail?" To that I can thankfully answer "no," as we receive far more expressions of gratitude than complaints. And, many of the complaints are presented respectfully and constructively. The follow-up question is often, "Who do you receive the most hate from?" When I answer that question, people are almost always surprised. My answer: the Church of Christ.

In the 16+ years I have been serving though GotQuestions.org, Church of Christ advocates have been, by far, the most consistent attackers. More sadly, though, Church of Christ advocates have also been the most rude, condescending, hateful, arrogant, and belligerent attackers. I lost count of how many times I have been proclaimed eternally condemned for one issue or another by self-proclaimed Church of Christ leaders/members. What are the issues they raise?

(1) The Church of Christ is the one true church of God, and anyone who is not a member of the Church of Christ is eternally condemned. I have literally had people tell me that the Church of Christ is the one and only Church of Christ because it has the name, "Church of Christ." Who knew? All you had to do to become the one true church was to have "Church of Christ" in your church's name.

(2) The New Testament does not record followers of Christ using musical instruments, therefore, if a church uses musical instruments, it is in fact worshipping Satan. Now, that might be a little bit of an exaggeration, but not by much. I have literally had Church of Christ advocates say that if I attend a church where musical instruments are used, I am bound for hell. Nevermind the fact that the New Testament nowhere prohibits or even discourages the use of musical instruments.

(3) Baptism is necessary for salvation. If a person is not baptized, he/she is not saved. Some go a step further and require baptism in a Church of Christ church for salvation. Essentially, the Church of Christ believes that in addition to faith, baptism is required for a person to be saved. God does not grant salvation until baptism occurs. Baptism is not a work that earns salvation, but it is something God requires before He grants salvation. Most Church of Christ advocates will say the same thing about repentance and public confession, but baptism is definitely what is emphasized the most.

It is interesting to probe Church of Christ baptism-salvation advocates a little further. If I state that I have received Christ as my Savior, by grace through faith, and have been baptized in obedience to Christ, and then ask if I am saved, the answer is usually, "no, because you do not believe that baptism is necessary for salvation." So, their belief regarding what is required for salvation is actually: faith, repentance, public confession, baptism, and belief that baptism is necessary for salvation. While there are a few Bible verses that seem to indicate baptism is necessary for salvation, there are none that require certain beliefs about baptism for salvation. Church of Christ advocates do not just believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. They believe that their understanding of baptism is required for salvation.

The other day we received a question that asked, "Why did you forget about baptism in your Gospel presentation articles?" After I finished laughing (and crying) at the fact that someone could think we "forgot" a crucial aspect of the Gospel, I responded by "speaking the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15) and explained the biblical relationship between salvation and baptism: baptism is a step of obedience, after salvation, to declare publicly that we have been saved by the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Not all Church of Christ advocates have been hateful towards us. Some have expressed their disagreements with respect. I have no doubt that there are many in the Church of Christ who are truly saved and truly love the Lord Jesus Christ. But, at the same time, others who claim to represent the Church of Christ have been our most vehement and persistent haters.

Addendum
We just had a Church of Christ advocate send us a large package of materials that argue for baptismal regeneration. Included in the package was a New Testament with the statement, "I am including a New Testament because you obviously don't read it." Sigh.

S. Michael Houdmann

Thanks for the heads up

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

I don't think you understand what a sin nature is....Here's a definition

The sin nature is that aspect in man that makes him rebellious against God. When we speak of the sin nature, we refer to the fact that we have a natural inclination to sin; given the choice to do God’s will or our own, we will naturally choose to do our own thing. ref


You can sin without a sin nature.

So it seems to me that one of the main points of contention here is the concept of the "sinful nature". Yet if humans can sin without this nature, then as I see it, the concept of sinful nature is a layer of understanding added that isn't necessary. What sinful nature says is that somehow the fundamental design of Adam was changed the first time he sinned. If sinful nature has to do with our flesh, then something of the biology changed. Yet, though Christ was born of a human mother, he somehow did not get that design change passed to Him and was somehow like Adam four thousand years before. I do not see this in scripture. I see that Jesus was sent to the Earth as we are to overcome what we could not. If He was not as we are, He could not have overcome what we could not (Romans 8:3).

If it is not in the flesh, the sarx, the body that the change is made, then where is it found? And where is it taught in scripture?

Furthermore, if the transformation is biological that Adam brought on, and we are recreated in Christ Jesus (Romans 5) so that whatever Adam did, Christ undid, then faithful Christians cannot have children with a sinful nature as that is taken away in Christ. Unless one believes that the sin of Adam is more powerful than the blood of Christ.

Technically yes...but we all eventually sin...all men sin...all men have a sin nature and are naturally rebellious against God

I do not believe the Bible teaches this. Neither that men have some "sinful nature" (a design flaw) or that all men eventually sin. Jesus was a man. Jesus never sinned. He showed, under a harder law (the law of Moses) that it could be done.

You don't need a sin nature to sin...look at Adam and Eve. There sin nature came after the fall.

Again, if a sin nature is not needed, then the concept is superfluous to the Bible. I see nothing of a sin nature talked about in Genesis 3 or beyond.

Once again...you can sin without a sin nature...look at the fallen angels.

I do not hold to this concept in scripture. The teaching is either taken from apocalyptic texts and is therefore metaphorical, or from Catholic mythology which isn't authoritative.

Humans have free-will..You're free to choose the color of the shirt you want to wear. As for your salvation humans can't choose Jesus. God has to make you alive in Christ first. Make you born again. Those who God chooses were chosen before the world was made.

It showed the two types of free-will.

I'm sorry, but free will is free will. The Bible makes no such distinction and in fact talks often of a free-will offering to God throughout the books of Moses. This is before Christ came to redeem man and is in fact worship to God. Either free will exists or it does not. There are not two kinds in scripture.

In Truth and Love.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

Welcome to CARM, and this is a good OP. It's probably not an Arminian versus Calvinism Post but it is intriguing. So if you would like to take it one at a time, I'd say the answer to number one is that Jesus was the Second Adam and neither of them had a Sin Nature until they would Sin. Adam was not Created with a Sin Nature, that's a Nature he earned...

Jesus never earned a Sin Nature...

I don't believe the Bible ever prevents anything such as a "sin nature". Do you believe this sinful nature is a function of the body (sarx) or the spirit (pneuma)?

And thanks for the welcome!

In Truth and Love.

 

[Theo1689]

So it seems to me that one of the main points of contention here is the concept of the "sinful nature". Yet if humans can sin without this nature, then as I see it, the concept of sinful nature is a layer of understanding added that isn't necessary.

So you're saying that some parts of the Bible "isn't necessary"?

You don't seem to understand.... The reason we believe in sinful nature is NOT because "we built a theology that needed it", it's because it's what the Bible TEACHES.

Furthermore, if the transformation is biological that Adam brought on, and we are recreated in Christ Jesus (Romans 5) so that whatever Adam did, Christ undid, then faithful Christians cannot have children with a sinful nature as that is taken away in Christ.

It's not genetic.

I do not believe the Bible teaches this. Neither that men have some "sinful nature" (a design flaw) or that all men eventually sin. Jesus was a man. Jesus never sinned. He showed, under a harder law (the law of Moses) that it could be done.

What does Rom. 3:19-20 (or better yet, vv. 10-20) teach?
What does Rom. 3:23 teach?
What does Rom. 5:18 teach?
What does Rom. 6:23 teach?

Again, if a sin nature is not needed,

What do you mean, "not needed"?
Are you simply going to throw out the Bible?

 

[ReverendRV]

I don't believe the Bible ever prevents anything such as a "sin nature". Do you believe this sinful nature is a function of the body (sarx) or the spirit (pneuma)?

And thanks for the welcome!

In Truth and Love.

You're welcome. The Sin Nature comes from our Spiritual Death; IE Separation from God. This Separation means that our Trichotomous Being is Fallen; as in 'Who will deliver me from this body of Death?'.

Does your new question keep us on-task regarding question number one in your OP? I'm confused by your word "prevents", did you mean presents?

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

Then you just showed me you don't understand free-will.

My apologies for not being as intelligent or educated as yourself.

Did you know history has already happened for God?

No. Rather, God exists outside of time and has the eternal perspective of perceiving all time simultaneously. However, knowing what will happen (from human perspective) is not the same as causing what happens.

Kinda snarky....I choose R.C.Sproul because he was a calvinist...a well respected and learned calvinist...which is what one of your post was asking for.

Yes, but Sproul is not in this conversation. If he were, I would be happy to talk to him. If this represents your view, then present it as such as we are the ones having the conversation.

Just for the record, who would you consider as an inspired man?

Authors of the Bible (Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Apostles, Luke, Mark, et. al.) and those who had the immediate, supernatural, personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit and could perform miracles to confirm such. I believe this ended with John in or around the first century AD so that would not include anyone today.

John 6:65 tells us.....And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

The question then becomes mechanical. How does God give us this ability to come to Jesus? Via faith (John 1:!2). How does faith come? By hearing the gospel (Rom. 10:17). It's not a supernatural, personal, immediate operation of God on the individual. It's through the Word that this happens. God calls us by the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14).

You can't even deny yourself, take up a cross and follow Jesus unless it is granted by God.

See above. The implication of your teaching, the conclusion you demand, is that this granting of the ability to follow Jesus is supernatural, personal, immediate operation of God on the individual. That is not only not the necessary conclusion, it isn't the one the Bible presents as I just wrote above.

Tell us something new.

I have already shown that spiritual death is different than physical death. Spiritual death is about separation, not a cessation of function. (Isa. 59:2). The whole point of the Bible is reconciliation with God. Nowhere does the Bible describe spiritual death as a cessation of the function of the spirit. In fact, if the spirit is dead as you and yours suggest, then the body would be dead too since the body without a functioning spirit is dead (James 2:26). The idea that a dead spirit does not function and cannot respond to stimuli makes no sense whatsoever.

Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Do yo need me to break it down for you?

This passage does not teach that a dead spirit does not function. That has to be read into the text. I know you see it there because that's what you believe, but that's not actually in the text.

That's a false gospel....John 3:16 says NOTHING about baptism. As a matter of fact if baptism was a requirement for salvation there would be a chapter or two talking about it.

There is more to the Bible than John 3:16. John 3:16 doesn't say anything about repentance either.

There are many, many passages talking about baptism as a requirement for salvation. Romans 6 is one. 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 22:16; Eph. 5:26; 1 John 5:6-8; even John 3:3-5 (which is in the context of vs 16). It's absolutely part of the gospel and in fact at its core. The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15). Romans 6:3-5 explains how we conform to that death, burial, and resurrection in baptism and verses 16-18 explicitly state that its then, when we yield ourselves to obey that doctrine, that we become free from sin.

Secondly, because of what Jesus did...lived a perfect sin free life, died in our place amongst other things He did for us in our place...baptism in the Jordon would have been one of them.

Jesus' baptism in the Jordan was not for the same purpose as ours. His was to fulfill all righteousness (doing all the right things). Ours is to be buried with Christ, to be put into Christ, to put on Christ, to have our sins washed by His blood (Gal. 3:26-27 and all those other passages I've already mentioned).

In Truth and Love.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

Could Jesus have sinned?
If He was not capable of sinning, how could He truly be able to 'sympathize with our weaknesses' (Hebrews 4:15)?
If He could not sin, what was the point of the temptation?"

Answer: There are two sides to this interesting question. It is important to remember that this is not a question of whether Jesus sinned. Both sides agree, as the Bible clearly says, that Jesus did not sin (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22). The question is whether Jesus could have sinned. Those who hold to “impeccability” believe that Jesus could not have sinned. Those who hold to “peccability” believe that Jesus could have sinned, but did not. Which view is correct? The clear teaching of Scripture is that Jesus was impeccable—Jesus could not have sinned. If He could have sinned, He would still be able to sin today because He retains the same essence He did while living on earth. He is the God-Man and will forever remain so, having full deity and full humanity so united in one person as to be indivisible. To believe that Jesus could sin is to believe that God could sin. “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him” (Colossians 1:19). Colossians 2:9 adds, “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.”

Although Jesus is fully human, He was not born with the same sinful nature that we are born with. He certainly was tempted in the same way we are, in that temptations were put before Him by Satan, yet He remained sinless because God is incapable of sinning. It is against His very nature (Matthew 4:1; Hebrews 2:18, 4:15; James 1:13). Sin is by definition a trespass of the Law. God created the Law, and the Law is by nature what God would or would not do; therefore, sin is anything that God would not do by His very nature.

To be tempted is not, in and of itself, sinful. A person could tempt you with something you have no desire to do, such as committing murder or participating in sexual perversions. You probably have no desire whatsoever to take part in these actions, but you were still tempted because someone placed the possibility before you. There are at least two definitions for the word “tempted”:

1) To have a sinful proposition suggested to you by someone or something outside yourself or by your own sin nature.

2) To consider actually participating in a sinful act and the possible pleasures and consequences of such an act to the degree that the act is already taking place in your mind.

The first definition does not describe a sinful act/thought; the second does. When you dwell upon a sinful act and consider how you might be able to bring it to pass, you have crossed the line of sin. Jesus was tempted in the fashion of definition one except that He was never tempted by a sin nature because it did not exist within Him. Satan proposed certain sinful acts to Jesus, but He had no inner desire to participate in the sin. Therefore, He was tempted like we are but remained sinless.

Those who hold to peccability believe that, if Jesus could not have sinned, He could not have truly experienced temptation, and therefore could not truly empathize with our struggles and temptations against sin. We have to remember that one does not have to experience something in order to understand it. God knows everything about everything. While God has never had the desire to sin, and has most definitely never sinned, God knows and understands what sin is. God knows and understands what it is like to be tempted. Jesus can empathize with our temptations because He knows, not because He has “experienced” all the same things we have.

Jesus knows what it is like to be tempted, but He does not know what it is like to sin. This does not prevent Him from assisting us. We are tempted with sins that are common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13). These sins generally can be boiled down to three different types: “the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16 NKJV). Examine the temptation and sin of Eve, as well as the temptation of Jesus, and you will find that the temptations for each came from these three categories. Jesus was tempted in every way and in every area that we are, but remained perfectly holy. Although our corrupt natures will have the inner desire to participate in some sins, we have the ability, through Christ, to overcome sin because we are no longer slaves to sin but rather slaves of God (Romans 6, especially verses 2 and 16-22).got?

hope this helps !!!

First, I appreciate the demeanor of your responses, and indeed most of those conversing with me here has been to the point and not to the person. It a wonderful thing that we are able to do this, this way and I sincerely appreciate it.

I cannot accept your definition of temptation. James speaks of temptation being based in human desire. Jesus was human and had those physical desires. In fact, those physical desires are not inherently evil. The desire for food, the desire for self-preservation, the desire for procreation, etc. It's from these that temptation arises. Temptation is the draw to abuse those physical gifts that God has given us and use them in an inordinate fashion.

Jesus, fully God, could not be tempted as God with the desire to sin as God because of what you have said above. However...

Jesus, fully human, had human desires and could certainly be tempted to abuse those gifts in an inordinate fashion. I believe this is what makes Jesus unique as an individual and the perfect mediator between God and man (because in becoming one of us, He understands things from our perspective as well as the perspective of the Godhead). Moreover, this is where the distinction and contention between us lies.

I agree that to be tempted is not itself tempted. It is the giving into the temptation that is sinful. Yet for it to be a temptation, the desire for the physical thing must exist. It had to be a real temptation that Jesus, fully human, could have given into. What you are calling peccable.

You gave two options above to understand the nature of temptation:

1) To have a sinful proposition suggested to you by someone or something outside yourself or by your own sin nature.

This isn't actual temptation if what they are suggesting has no appeal to your natural, physical desires. It has to be more than the suggestion to do something wrong because not everything that is wrong appeals to everyone. I have zero desire for homosexual interaction. I cannot be tempted to commit the sin of homosexuality. I have zero desire to murder. I cannot be tempted to commit murder. Yet there are other desires I do have and can be tempted with. It's only a temptation though because the basic desire exists.

2) To consider actually participating in a sinful act and the possible pleasures and consequences of such an act to the degree that the act is already taking place in your mind.

I believe there is an option that is between these two that exists. As I described above, a temptation is when the opportunity presents itself (either as a suggestion by another, or just the situation you happen upon) for a person to act on natural desires (God's human design) in an inordinate fashion. There must be a draw there on that desire, even if the draw is immediately and always rejected as Christ did. Because that is what a temptation really is, a draw.

Jesus was tempted in the wilderness to abuse His power as deity to fulfill His fleshly desire of hunger for food. It would not have been wrong for Him to eat. It wasn't even wrong for Him to miraculously produce food (consider the loaves and fishes). The sin would have been doing what the Devil said out of selfish desire.

Jesus, fully human, felt the draw of sin just as any man. He said no each and every time without any more supernatural assistance than what men face today. It was a real temptation that He had every capacity being fully human to give in to. Yet He was without sin. If the temptation was not real or He had additional help, then He is invalidated as a sacrifice and mediator.

In Truth and Love.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

You're welcome. The Sin Nature comes from our Spiritual Death; IE Separation from God. This Separation means that our Trichotomous Being is Fallen; as in 'Who will deliver me from this body of Death?'.

Does your new question keep us on-task regarding question number one in your OP? I'm confused by your word "prevents", did you mean presents?

Yes, presents. At the library. This keyboard is less than ideal. Thanks for the correction.

 

[ReverendRV]

Yes, presents. At the library. This keyboard is less than ideal. Thanks for the correction.

Would you say that Ephesians 2:3 presents the Sin Nature?

Among them we too all previously lived in the Lusts of our Flesh, indulging the Desires of the Flesh and of the Mind, and were by Nature children of Wrath, just as the rest.

Then maybe we could get back to question number one...

 

[CrowCross]

So it seems to me that one of the main points of contention here is the concept of the "sinful nature". Yet if humans can sin without this nature, then as I see it, the concept of sinful nature is a layer of understanding added that isn't necessary. What sinful nature says is that somehow the fundamental design of Adam was changed the first time he sinned. If sinful nature has to do with our flesh, then something of the biology changed. Yet, though Christ was born of a human mother, he somehow did not get that design change passed to Him and was somehow like Adam four thousand years before. I do not see this in scripture. I see that Jesus was sent to the Earth as we are to overcome what we could not. If He was not as we are, He could not have overcome what we could not (Romans 8:3).

Who Jesus' biological father?

From reading your opinion of what the sin nature is...I see you still don't understand it. We've discussed it earlier.

I'll keep it brief this time...If you don't have a sin nature you don't have to sin...all though A&E demonstrated they could. If you have a sin nature it is your nature to sin..and you will sin and fall short.

If it is not in the flesh, the sarx, the body that the change is made, then where is it found? And where is it taught in scripture?

Through one man sin entered...no man is good. A&E's eyes wre open. Do you think that means they could now physically see?

Furthermore, if the transformation is biological that Adam brought on, and we are recreated in Christ Jesus (Romans 5) so that whatever Adam did, Christ undid, then faithful Christians cannot have children with a sinful nature as that is taken away in Christ. Unless one believes that the sin of Adam is more powerful than the blood of Christ.

I have no clue as to what you are talking about here. Can't have children????

I do not believe the Bible teaches this. Neither that men have some "sinful nature" (a design flaw) or that all men eventually sin. Jesus was a man. Jesus never sinned. He showed, under a harder law (the law of Moses) that it could be done.

The sin nature isn't a design flaw...as if God created A&E with it. It is somthing that began. But. untill you understand what the sin nature is..it'll be difficult discussing it with you.

Again, if a sin nature is not needed, then the concept is superfluous to the Bible. I see nothing of a sin nature talked about in Genesis 3 or beyond.

A&E were created good. In fact very good. Having a sin nature is not good. Justas the bush began to grow thorns something changed in the bush's DNA that now causes it to be a thorn bush.
Is the sin nature now in theDNA where at one time it wasn't? Perhaps it's a spiritual death issue. One thing I know for sure is that you don't know.

I do not hold to this concept in scripture. The teaching is either taken from apocalyptic texts and is therefore metaphorical, or from Catholic mythology which isn't authoritative.

Then why do we sin? Death was brought on by sin. If babies don't have a sin nature and haven't sin...why can they die?

I'm sorry, but free will is free will. The Bible makes no such distinction and in fact talks often of a free-will offering to God throughout the books of Moses. This is before Christ came to redeem man and is in fact worship to God. Either free will exists or it does not. There are not two kinds in scripture.

Despite our conversations...like the sin nature you don't seem to understand the nuances of free-will.

Can you freely come to Jesus if God doesn't draw you or give you the ability to come to Jesus? Can you do it on your own?

In Truth and Love.

 

[CrowCross]

Would you say that Ephesians 2:3 presents the Sin Nature?

Among them we too all previously lived in the Lusts of our Flesh, indulging the Desires of the Flesh and of the Mind, and were by Nature children of Wrath, just as the rest.

Then maybe we could get back to question number one...

Excellent verse.

 

[CrowCross]

The question then becomes mechanical. How does God give us this ability to come to Jesus? Via faith (John 1:!2). How does faith come? By hearing the gospel (Rom. 10:17). It's not a supernatural, personal, immediate operation of God on the individual. It's through the Word that this happens. God calls us by the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14).

Right...as you see you can't choose Jesus unless God does the above.

 

[ReverendRV]

Excellent verse.

It's excellent in several ways. One is that it shows alternating Categories of Human Natures by the use of the word 'were'. Past Tense, in accord to the Nature of the Unconverted; distinct from the Nature the Converted now consist of...

I would hope to earn a little credit with him. If the Converted can have a new Human Nature, why could Adam not have had a different, good Human Nature before his eyes were opened?

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

Trying to reply to all of these as I don't wish to anyone to think I'm ignoring them or leaving them out. My time is limited, though, so please bear with me.

Excellent question. The whole reason God bypassed a father as it were, was not just to verify Jesus through a miracle, but because of the principle of federal headship. God could and did verify Jesus through many miracles, and he could have let Jesus just be born the normal way humans are born if he intended Jesus to represent us as actually functionally identical to the sinful people he was to redeem.

I would need to see scripture for this rather than just accept it as fact.

If the heart and motivating principle of all sin is a nature predisposed and desirous of sin,

But it's not a nature predisposed and desirous of sin. Else, according to your doctrine, Adam would not have sinned since Adam did not have such a sin nature.

then when the Bible tells us Jesus was "apart from sin" it makes a fundamental and momumental difference between Christ and us. Notice it doesn't say "apart from sins" in the plural, and when it says "It is longer I that do it, but the sin that dwells in me," and "Jesus put away sin by the sacrifice of himself," it also uses the singular. What many theologies end up doing is denying that sin is a living principle, and only reduce it to individual deliberate decisions. That way, you could sort of hypothesize that Jesus "cleans you up" and then "sets you loose to do better," as it were. But the Bible describes sin as a living thing inside of us and declares "in my flesh there dwells no good thing" and that we are "sold on the auction block to sin" inside of Adam.

I believe that the phrase in Hebrews 4:15 is "without sin" (KJV) and means that Jesus lived as we lived, fully human, but didn't commit sin. That it is singular and not plural doesn't change this. The point the writer is making is that Jesus is like us in every way (fully human) and yet He never committed sin making Him the perfect representative for us on the cross and the perfect mediator between God and man having both perspectives fully.

This makes what Jesus did for us more than just erasing a slate of bad decisions, but actually resurrected, recreating and doing a supernatural change in our heart. We go from being spiritually dead, to being spiritually alive, not from having done some bad things, to getting to try again and do less bad things this time. God offers us real grace in the form of becoming a new creation, and he himself, living through us to do for us what we can't do for ourselves.

If spiritual death is separation from God, then regeneration is restoring that relationship to God. It's not a design change, but a relationship change. The recreation is synonymous with regeneration and resurrection, a restoring to life, a restoring to the right relationship with God.

When we in any way deny the sin nature, we logically are forced to embrace one or another form of self-righteousness. We deny the Biblical declarations of our old man, our sinful nature, our body of sin, being nailed to the cross with Christ, as just a metaphorical way of saying we pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps and try a little harder. We are so fundamentally sinful, evil and fallen in our old nature, that God clearly says we must count ourselves as actually having been "crucified with Christ" so that Christ has the opportunity to live through us instead of our own efforts. "The life I live I live by trusting the Son of God," Paul really counted himself to have died, not just died to his failed attempts, but actually died to every source of his own ability and goodness, in Christ. He had a righteousness that was not his own through the Law, but every good thing he did was just Jesus living again inside of him as a gift of grace.

I do not see this as a natural conclusion. God provided things to save us that mankind was and is incapable of providing for himself. God provided the perfect sacrifice and Savior in His Son and the pattern to follow in the inspired Word. Those are what save us. Our following God's pattern, the Word, isn't self-righteousness because it's not our plan, it's God's. When we do things God's way, there is no value, no merit in them as Luke 17:10 points out. We aren't pulling, causing, affecting salvation. We are merely submitting and trusting by our thoughts and actions that God is saving us when we obey His commands.

If I accept that man cannot respond to God's grace on his own free will, and that God transforms him first, then he responds, and then I acknowledge that not all men are saved, then I can only conclude that God is arbitrary, biased, capricious, and unjust. That He based on some whim of His own He chose some and not others to punish, to condemn to eternity in Gehenna, without regard to their actions, is the very essence of injustice. I reject that completely.

This method and way of looking at sanctification protects us from self-righteous, self-goodness and secret pride. The whole idea of sinless perfection in any way, shape or form, is just an idol to self-goodness and prideful attempt to produce what only Jesus Christ could ever please God with in his death and resurrection. We enter in to the Work of Christ, we don't "co-create" another good work along with him; that is introducing upon and replacing the grace of God, as the book of Galatians teaches us.

My beliefs have never led me or any that I know who hold to these beliefs to be self-righteous or prideful. We understand that God does the saving. He died for us, He gave us the plan, He offers the blessings. There is no self-righteousness or merit in my faith.

The reason I'm going on and on about this is because it explains why Jesus had to be free from a sin nature. Jesus said "Satan had nothing IN him," not just that Satan had nothing ON him, like a crime he had committed—nothing IN him. By living a perfect life as a representative of humanity free from sinful ties and control, he could function as a true stand-in to reverse original sin. As in Adam, all die, so in Christ, all will be made alive. Just as sins reigns through the death passed by Adam, so life reigns through the grace passed by Christ. It's a correlation, and federal headship and delegation has mercifully passed the ownership of humanity to Christ over Satan. He has been made head of all things on behalf of the church, he who knew no sin (singular) was made sin for us, our life is hidden in Christ in God, he despoiled principalities and powers, and he frees us from our body of death.

So grant then that sin nature is a thing, for the sake of argument. If Christ reversed what Adam did, at least in those who are recreated, made a new creature according to your paradigm, how is it that those who have a new nature can have kids that are still tainted with a sin nature? Is Adam's sin stronger than Christ's blood?

Perfect natures can still sin. Adam and Satan were declared to be created good and righteous.

Agreed.

Paul said "in my flesh there dwells no good thing," currently. If we focus on being perfect in this life we make it a prideful self-sourced idol, instead of our life truly and genuinely being only a work of mercy and grace.

If what Paul meant by that was sin nature instead of speaking hyperbolically, then how can Paul claim to have been recreated in Christ?

I don't think that logically follows. If we kept down that train of thought we would have to say Jesus knew what it was like to actually sin exactly as we have, to really know what it feels like to have sinned.

Why would we have to say that?

Yes, we definitely have some vital and fundamental differences in soteriology.

Peace in Christ and may he show us the truth!

Amen! Thanks for the discussion and the manner in which we have been able to conduct it so far.

In Truth and Love.

 

[Kade Rystalmane]

Would you say that Ephesians 2:3 presents the Sin Nature?

Among them we too all previously lived in the Lusts of our Flesh, indulging the Desires of the Flesh and of the Mind, and were by Nature children of Wrath, just as the rest.

Then maybe we could get back to question number one...

No, I would not say that. Natures can change through long habit and thought and isn't necessarily about design. Children of Wrath was something they became through "indulging in the desires of the flesh and mind" as your translation puts it. They changed their nature.

In Truth and Love (not hate as I have been accused).

 

[ReverendRV]

No, I would not say that. Natures can change through long habit and thought and isn't necessarily about design. Children of Wrath was something they became through "indulging in the desires of the flesh and mind" as your translation puts it. They changed their nature.

In Truth and Love (not hate as I have been accused).

Well have a good night, if you're still at the Library I would hate to be the reason they lock you in for the night...

Think about this over night, can anything change it's Nature over it's Life time; let's say, like maybe a leopard could change it's spots? It seems like we need to talk about the Nature of... Nature...

Even Evolution says that nothing changes it's Nature in it's Life Cycle...